How do you feel about NY's same-sex marriage ruling? Submit your opinion to the online zine Grrrl Beat!

I'm guessing you've already heard the fantastic news: "[New York] lawmakers voted late Friday to legalize same-sex marriage, making New York the largest state where gay and lesbian couples will be able to wed and giving the national gay-rights movement new momentum from the state where it was born."

Sophie, the creator of the online magazine Grrrl Beat, is seeking submissions from teens about their views on this momentous ruling. If this issue is at all important to you, I highly suggest whipping up a response and sending it to grrrlbeat@gmail.com as soon as possible!

This was my response: 

Before finding feminism and identifying wholly with the movement, I wasn't too familiar with the LGBTAQ (lesbian, gay, bi, transgender, asexual, queer) community or its struggles. I certainly didn't have a problem with people who fit under the acronym's umbrella, but I knew as much about their varying lifestyles as I knew about theoretical physics (which wasn't much).

Considering I can literally count my family members on two hands (and the number of non-Christians on about three fingers), I didn't experience much diversity growing up. My parents were cool about most things and taught us to be honest, hard-working, etc., but homosexuality was something we just didn't talk about at the dinner table. (We rarely ate at the table, anyway. Most of the time we had our butts planted to watch Seinfeld. Bonding at its finest.)

Feminism introduced me to a litany of human rights issues. I'm still not as well-versed in the LGBTAQ movement as I would like to be, but I do have a child-like passion for equality. "Should two people of the same sex be allowed to get married?" seems like such a stupid question. If two people love each other, why shouldn't they be inclined to do whatever the hell they want? Love is love. It doesn't matter what form that takes.

When Sophie (from Grrrl Beat) emailed me the news — that same-sex couples can now get marriage licenses in New York — I was ecstatic. It was one of those fist-pumping "Hell yeah, equality strikes again!" sort of feelings. This may only be a small win in the grand scope of things, but this win will inspire another, and that win will inspire two more.

People are going to fight us every step of the way, but activists and feminists and allies are rising up in mighty hordes. Imagine if we (those of us who want to) go on to have kids of our own, passing on ideas like "equality" and "acceptance." Our kids will teach their kids, their kids will teach their own kids, and then those kids will go on to teach their kids (the only difference is they'll have robot butlers by then).

This world is changing for the better, and I am so damn excited.

Pro-Choice is Pro-Life (By Amelia G.)

This article was written by Amelia G., a woman who describes herself as "an undergraduate, feminist, seafood enthusiast, bookworm (and, more recently, blogworm)." She writes for Plenty of Otherwise!

"If you can't trust a woman with a choice,
how can you trust her with a baby?"

The other day I came across an article in the Michigan Messenger about how Thaddeus McCotter, a Republican running for president in 2012, signed a "Pro-life leadership pledge." This means that if elected, he'll "nominate pro-life judges, select pro-life cabinet members, de-fund Planned Parenthood and support legislation that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy."

That news didn't exactly surprise me, but it still pissed me off, especially given the fresh batch of anti-choice news that has popped up in the U.S. this week. The Executive Council in New Hampshire just voted to de-fund Planned Parenthood. And yesterday, a federal judge blocked a law that would have required Crisis Pregnancy Centers, or CPCs, to disclose particular information about themselves, such as whether they employ licensed medical personnel.

CPCs pose as abortion clinics, but do not provide abortion or contraceptives (nor do they refer women to organizations that do). As the Ms. article points out, CPCs are notorious for providing false medical information about abortion in order to scare women out of considering it as a viable option that might work for them.

I'm really uncomfortable knowing that I live in a country whose government damn near shut down over an argument about whether to de-fund an organization that does as much good as Planned Parenthood. And it hurts even more to learn that people are actively working to ensure that the nation's laws are on the side of CPCs that flat-out lie to women who come to them for help and comprehensive information.

As someone who cares deeply about reproductive justice and people in general, I'd like to take this opportunity to explain — to Representative McCotter, Judge Pauley, and everyone else behind all of the legislation that has come up since the last election — that pro-choice is pro-life.

A lot of people will be surprised to hear this, but I didn't always identify as pro-choice.

Yeah, really. Because let's face it: the rhetoric sounds great. Don't kill babies. That's something I could totally get behind, you know?

Neither of my parents are U.S. citizens, so they can't vote. Therefore, politics just weren't discussed in our house when I was growing up. I've read that statistically, parents have a great deal of influence over their children's political views. That wasn't really the case for me. I had a few opinions, but those were based shallowly on what I felt to be common sense.

So, when asked for my views on abortion, I would proudly declare that I was pro-life and thought abortion was wrong.

But once I got to high school, I noticed that a lot of people I really respected were especially passionate about their pro-choice views. And important things were going on at the time that forced me to seriously reevaluate my stance. In 2006, when I was a junior, my school district considered adopting an abstinence-only sex education program, to replace the comprehensive one that was in place.

People went apeshit. Friends of mine spoke out against the proposal at school board meetings. Medical professionals came in from out of town to voice their opinion, too. And in the end, we stuck with a comprehensive program.

I was pleased with the school board's decision not to adopt an abstinence only program (even though I didn't believe in abortion, I wasn't quite that conservative; I've always fully supported birth control). But I still could not understand how or why my friends felt so strongly about the abortion issue in particular. And because I knew my friends to be intelligent, compassionate people, I wanted to understand their point of view, so I started researching the topic.

I don't remember a specific moment when I "became pro-choice." I do know, though, that I kept finding instances where I could see myself agreeing that abortion was an acceptable option: rape, incest, poverty, etc.

But what won me over fully in the end were the personal anecdotes. By reading tons of stories about women's experiences with pregnancy, I discovered that it was impossible to put them into boxes marked with the aforementioned labels. It hit me that I couldn't call myself pro-life without taking women's lives and diverse experiences into consideration.

The Supreme Court's upholding of the "partial birth abortion" ban in 2007 (the year I graduated from high school) is the event that both tested and solidified my new pro-choice views. I was furious with the decision, even though when George W. Bush had signed the bill four years prior, I hadn't had a problem with it. That's because on the surface, "partial birth abortion" sounds awful; it evokes images of selfish women who, after 35 weeks of pregnancy, suddenly freak out and realize that they don't want to carry the pregnancy to term. So they go out and have an abortion.

But for one thing, "partial birth abortion" is not a medical term; it was coined by right-wing politicians. And secondly, come on, there have to be reasons for women to get an abortion that late in the game.

And damn good ones, at that.

One woman's story has really stuck with me over the years. It appears on page 14 of  The War on Choice by Gloria Feldt:

We were awaiting the arrival of a son. I'm diabetic, so I had more prenatal testing than most women. At twenty-five weeks I had an ultrasound and the doctor's exact words were, "Vick, you are disgustingly normal and so is the baby." At thirty-two weeks I went in for another ultrasound and my world came crashing down. They discovered that [the fetus] had not grown past twenty-five weeks, and further testing revealed that he had nine major anomalies, including a fluid-filled cranium with no brain tissue at all. He could never have survived outside my womb. My body was the only thing keeping him alive, and I chose to remove my son from life support. I'm a mom. I had three beautiful children, and in fact I have a new baby boy who's here with me now. Who are the people on the anti-choice side to judge me? They've never been in my shoes. I never in my wildest dreams thought something like this could happen, but it happened to me.

The abortion she had in 1996 was made illegal under the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Her experience reminds me of the woman in NE who, earlier this year, was denied an abortion and forced to watch her baby die in her arms shortly after giving birth.

So this is why I feel so strongly that lawmakers should not get between a woman and her doctor. As NARAL's Speak Out for Choice Award recipient Katie Stack said earlier this year during her acceptance speech: "Women's experiences with abortion are nuanced and complicated. But . . . if [we are] given the opportunity to share these diverse realities, we can begin to challenge the stereotypes and falsehoods that are promoted by the anti-choice movement."

Pro-choice is pro-life. That's something I firmly believe and discovered simply by being curious and open. By reading. By trusting/caring about people, and respecting their personal opinions and choices.

I don't think that's too much to ask of humanity.

A Modest Proposal (Abortion Edition)

Last year in class we read A Modest Proposal (1729) by Jonathan Swift. It's a satirical piece in which Swift suggests that the Irish should eat their own babies rather than tackle problems of overpopulation and poverty head-on. We were asked to write a similarly satirical piece about an impassioned issue, so I chose abortion rights. [WARNING: The keyword here is "satire," people!]

Which side am I really on?

Written October 9, 2010

Abortion has been one of the most fiercely debated topics of the 21st century, and frankly, I’m tired of hearing about it. If right-wingers truly believe abortion is a sin, and the women who choose to abort are evil, heartless murderers, it’s time to do something rather than settle for bad picket signs and expect anything to happen. What, are we just going to say “no more abortions!” and wait for them to disappear like rats up a drain pipe? We need to get to the root of the problem.

First, we need to ask ourselves: what drives women to have abortions? Are these women simply born with demonic souls, or are they driven to kill after years of reckless partying, drinking, and hardcore drugs (because obviously, any woman callous enough to get an abortion must be sniffing the Big H)? 

Some will have you believe that the decision has less to do with a woman’s lifestyle, and more with what she can expect for the future of her baby. If a woman becomes pregnant, these pro-choicers cry, and her partner is irresponsible, refuses to pay child support, or just gets up and leaves, she may not have the means to provide for a child. Pro-choicers want us to think that if a woman has a dead-end job, absolutely no support, and struggles just to find her next meal, it’s okay for her to choose an abortion rather than let her child suffer. 

Evil, right?

I propose three solutions to the abortion epidemic in this country. First, we must outlaw condoms and sex education. By exposing children to the mechanics of sex and pregnancy prevention as early as middle school, we’re basically telling them (a) it’s okay to “get jiggy with it,” and (b) there are ultimately no consequences because any mistake (i.e. pregnancy) can simply be undone (i.e. abortion). By outlawing condoms, couples will know that their actions may result in an unwanted pregnancy, and they’ll refrain from doing the deed in the first place.

Next, we must set up a national fund to pay women for choosing life over murder. If a poverty-stricken woman is given a choice between having an abortion or receiving a lump sum and letting her baby live, she’ll definitely choose the money. Thus, dinner is served and she can live happily ever after — guilt and problem free — with her bouncing bundle of joy.

Finally, we must make it illegal for two people to have “relations” without first signing mutual contracts in which they provide vital information, including (but not limited to): their name, age, sex, complete medical history, social security number, financial records, and high school transcript. By making the intimate details of our medical histories accessible to the public, we will know at once who has heart conditions, bladder control problems, hemorrhoids, STDs, clinical baldness, etc. and can thus make better decisions about our sexual partners. Not to mention, women will never be in the position of deciding whether or not to keep her child because of an irresponsible partner — she will already have access to his bank account! It’s the perfect solution!

As long as we’re willing to give up any shred of privacy whatsoever and allow the government to have free reign over our personal lives, we can eradicate abortion in America once and for all.

Sure, we could take the easy route and assume women are intelligent and conscientious enough to make their own decisions about their own bodies; we could have faith in the fact that women don’t take abortion lightly, that they think about it long and hard, and are affected by it each and every day for the rest of their lives; we could even focus on better sex education and allow free access to birth control to lessen the chance that couples would have to face an unplanned pregnancy in the first place.

But we’re Americans, and we don’t like to take the easy route.

Interview With A Cult Member

And today's Dumbass Award goes to . . .

Since mentioning them in my post about SlutWalk Seattle a few weeks ago, I promised myself that I wouldn't write about the Westboro Baptist Church ever, ever again. They're America's most infamous hate-mongers, using the bible and Christianity (at least, their brand of Christianity) to justify savage and hateful messages targeted at almost every group imaginable: homosexuals, abortionists, Muslims, Jews, Roman Catholics, even the United States military.

There's a 99.999% chance that WBC hates you, too.

Free speech is one of many things that makes our nation — well, to be quite frank — pretty damn awesome, but this insane, hate-filled cult abuses that right to personally attack the aforementioned groups and their families. When they're not stomping the American flag with soccer cleats or posting hateful parodies of popular songs on their website (the homophobic buggers even had the nerve to parody an Elton John song), they travel thousands of miles from their cozy coven in Topeka, Kansas to picket military funerals, gay pride events, Jewish community centers, etc.

They even went so far as to picket the funeral of Matthew Shepard, a young man who was murdered in 1998 for no other reason than the fact that he was gay. In response, WBC posted this on their website:

WBC picketed the funeral of Matthew Shepard, to inject a little truth and sanity into the irrational orgy of lies consuming this world. WBC does not support the murder of Matthew Shepard . . . However, the truth about Matthew Shepard needs to be known. He lived a Satanic lifestyle. He got himself killed trolling for anonymous homosexual sex in a bar at midnight. Unless he repented in the final hours of his life, he is in hell. He will be in hell for all eternity,

Have you bashed in your screen yet? No? Okay, let's keep going.

Don't get me wrong, I know what these people are doing. Let's just say it's no coincidence that WBC has so many lawyers in the family. They're media-hounds. They picked the most controversial subjects in existence — homosexuality, religion, patriotism, the government — and have blown them into crazy proportions in order to get people to fire back at them. If somebody so much as lays a finger on one of these "peaceful protesters" BAM! They're slapped with a billion dollar lawsuit and consecutive life sentences. You gotta hand it to these guys. They've got a sweet little operation set up.

Here's a documentary about WBC called "The Most Hated Family in America." It's interesting, but watch it at your own risk! These people are very, very, very, very, very, very (did I say very?) offensive.

Back to the topic at hand, I had a crazy whim to get in contact with WBC yesterday. I wanted to  know what it was like to talk to somebody who has such blatant disregard for compassion, humanity — and since WBC's website mockingly claims that they lose 0 nanoseconds of sleep over other people's "thoughts and feeeeellllliiiiiiings," I knew any member of the church would be a perfect match.

It took about an hour and twenty failed call attempts to reach anybody from the church. Clever Netizens have posted the personal phone numbers of all WBC leaders online, but the poor saps can probably only take so many prank calls before they have to acquire new numbers, rendering their old numbers invalid. After hearing The number you have dialed is no longer in service for the twentieth time, finally, I succeeded.

This is a transcript of my interview with a member of the Westboro Baptist Cult — I mean Church. For privacy's sake (and the fact that I can't afford to get sued), I've changed the interviewee's name:

*Phone ringing* 

Schmoopie: This is Schmoopie, may I help you? 

Danielle: Hi, are you affiliated with the Westboro Baptist Church? 

S: I am. 

D: Um, I actually have a few questions. 

S: You have a few questions? 

D: Yeah, I was actually wondering how you guys felt— 

S: Is this kind of a personal inquiry or is this a media inquiry? 

D: More personal. It's just one question . . .  

S: Go ahead. 

D: What is your church's view on feminism, women's rights, that kind of thing? 

S: On, on what now? 

D: Feminism, women's rights? 

S: Oh well, uh, God — there's nothin' wrong with women. *laughs* God didn't say it was an abomination to be a woman. Uh, yeah, so women are cool. 

*audible laughter in the background* 

D: Oh, okay. So what about feminism in general? Do you—

S: You, you mean — well if by feminism you mean, uh, women, uh, trying to be all that and a bag of chips? 

D: Uh, no, I mean women who are fighting for equal pay, equal treatment under the law, that kind of thing? 

S: Well I think that, uh, everybody ought to be treated equal under the law, and I think that women have every right in the world to make as much money as a man does to do the same job.  

D: Okay. 

S: Yeah, that's all groovy-gravy right there. 

D: So, you don't believe that if a woman, or even a man, defines themself as a feminist that they would go to hell? 

S: Well, I think that anybody who defines themself as a feminist, uh, probably isn't interested in the bible. 

D: Oh, why is that? There are plenty of women who mesh— 

S: Did you just, did you ask me a question? Do you want me to answer it? 

D: Yes. Sorry. 

S: Alright, cool. So anybody who defines themself as a feminist probably doesn't have the, um, a proper fear of the lord. I'm not trying to throw a big blanket over the whole thing, but what I'm saying is, the kinds of things that you've talked about, the kinds of aspects of feminism that you've already talked about — equal pay, equal treatment under the law — that doesn't have anything to do with feminism. And certainly we're not opposed to anything like that, but I will tell you that some aspects of quote-on-quote feminism is, I think the Westboro Baptist Church absolutely has a problem with. And that is, that would be stuff like this: Um, the bible says "I suffer not a woman to teach," so the idea of a woma— of female preachers in the pulpits in the churches . . . 

D: Mhmm? 

S: Is an absolute no-no by scriptural standards. Furthermore, uh, uh, the wife is subject to the husband in all things in that marriage covenant. So in other words, you know the husband or the father in the house is the authority in the house. He's the final say in the house. So, those aspects of things, that the feminist movement has tried, has tried for a long time now to usurp and to reject. Uh, w-we, we absolutely — look — if man says one thing, and God says another, you know, vis a vis the bible, we're gonna go with the bible.  

D: Okay. 

S: But we don't have, we don't have any problem with the stuff, huh, the [unintelligible] equal treatment under the law, and the equal pay, and those kinds of things. Who the heck would want to pay a woman and a man a different wage for doing the same job? 

D: Exactly. Um, actually feminism as I know it is exactly what you said: it's fighting for equal rights, equal pay, equal political opportunities, so I was just curious — what is your definition of a feminist?  

Directions:

1. Look up book on Amazon

2. Read synopsis

3. Commence punching yourself

    in the face

S: Well that's a little bit, you know look, I have my definition of feminism . . . You know used to, I used to study, uh, philosophy at the Department — at the, the University of Kansas. I worked on a piece there for a while, so I have a philosophical definition of feminism, but then you— feminism is one of those kinda murky, uh, there really isn't a tightly-wound, uh, you know, disposition there, it's kinda like nailing jello to a tree. 

If you ask five different people what feminism is you're proba— you're bound to get five different answers. But, so, like I said, those aspects of, of feminism that have to do with equal treatment under the law, we're all for. But when you usurp the bible's authority on some aspects of feminism like, say, putting women in the pulpits, and, and having women— and there's a really good book for you to read on this. I can't think of the author's name, but I can tell you what the, the name of the book is. You'll really like this. It's called, uh, Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wives, and Women Preachers. And that's, that's got kind of a bible view of how a true church of the lord Jesus Christ oughta take a look at the roles of women. 

Well, I like women though. I got daughters and I got friends, sisters in Christ, and I have a wife. Cool? 

D: Okay. Thank you very much. 

S: Alright. 

D: 'Kay, bye.

Would I have liked a more substantial interview, one where I was actually given the time to sputter out more than "okay" and "mhmm"? Absolutely.

Analyze that conversation as you will, but I just think it proves that the members of WBC are incredibly closed-minded. Schmoopie may have pretended to be progressive and enlightened by oh-so-intelligently proclaiming his love and appreciation for the female sex (and I quote: "women are cool"), but he's obviously no different than the author of the horrendous book he suggested to me:

• Someone who doesn't think women are fit to teach anyone with a male appendage, 
• someone who thinks wives should keep their mouths shut rather than have opinions of their own, and 
• someone who thinks women shouldn't even be allowed to cut their freaking hair.

I've thought a lot about this since yesterday. I've stewed over it. Rued over it. And as drunkenly ridiculous as this may sound, I think America needs groups like the Westboro Baptist Church. Why? Because they show us the wrong way to live. They show us what hate really looks like, thereby solidifying many of our beliefs in true justice, love, tolerance, and equality. 

So thank you, WBC, for being such major jackasses!

And remember kiddies, if the Westboro Baptist Church hates you, that must mean you're doing something right!

____________________________

Recommended Videos:

• Shirley Phelps (WBC) Gets Bashed by Julie Banderas on Fox News
• Shirley Phelps (WBC) on Tyra Banks' Show
• Shirley Phelps Thinks that the Amish Girls Deserved to Die
• Michael Moore vs. Westboro Baptist Church
• Anonymous Hacks Westboro Baptist Church Website
• Westboro Baptist Church Family Disowns Daughter

____________________________

Contact Information:

If you would like to email WBC, possibly give 'em a piece of your mind, go here.

If you'd like to personally call one of the members of WBC like I did, go here. Scroll down until you see the second phone number given by a person called "C." I heard WBC likes phone calls at 3 am.

A Video that Summarizes My Views on Gay Marriage

This video perfectly — and I mean perfectly — summarizes my feelings on gay marriage. Watch it (the actual thing starts at 0:28), and I'm pretty sure you'll figure out where I stand. 
If you like Nineteenpercent, check out her other video Beyonce - Run the World (LIES)!

For Every Girl, For Every Boy

Purity Balls: Why is our virginity anybody's business but our own?

When I was a kid (read: younger than I am now), I was deathly afraid of Chucky from the Child’s Play series. You know him, right? He’s got cute little overalls, tousled red hair . . . and a knack for killing people in a variety of strange and gruesome ways. Well, when I was fairly young I made the mistake of watching the first Child’s Play movie with my parents, and up until the age of thirteen or so I was convinced he used to hobble down our hallway in the dead of night. I can even remember being shaken from a deep sleep on more than one occasion, body drenched with sweat, fearing that you-know-who was in the next room over - or worse, my closet - planning the best way to finish me off.

Thankfully, I’ve since gotten over my fear of croaky-voiced, homicidal dolls, but that doesn’t mean I’m fearless. There are still tons of things that make my blood pressure spike - spiders, clowns, and playing Silent Hill alone in the dark, for instance - but there’s one real-world issue that really makes me want to squirm: Purity Balls.

I’d be surprised if this is your first time hearing about Purity Balls. The issue has been beaten to death - both by Christian conservatives who think they’re the keenest thing since toilet paper, and liberals (like myself) who think they’re a huge infringement on the rights of young girls - but if this truly is your first time hearing the (slightly suggestive) term, let me explain:

Purity Balls are pretty much like weddings. They’re held in big, fancy hotels with elegant finger foods, butlers with bad comb-overs, and the occasional stereotypical violinist in the corner; there’s also dancing, performances, pretty gowns, and a whole lot of pleasantries. But instead of a bride and groom coming together to pronounce their love to the world, the fathers and daughters attending these things make vows of their own. In well-rehearsed, cult-like chanting, the daughters promise to stay “pure” (i.e. abstinent) until marriage, and their fathers promise to help protect said purity, while staying pure themselves (i.e. by refraining from looking at pornography). As an added bonus, sometimes the fathers give their daughters purity rings, or more disturbingly, keys (to their virginity) that can be stashed away until their future husbands come along.

You can’t see me, but I’m really biting my lip on this one. I have a lot of amazing Christian friends who’ve made vows to “stay pure,” and I want them to know that I really, really respect their decisions. In fact, I think wanting to save yourself for marriage is extremely commendable - and smart on some levels - but I just can’t get past how Purity Balls take notions of celibacy to the extreme. Here’s my beef:

1) I don’t like that in the Christian view “sex” is seen as the antithesis of “purity” and "righteousness." That makes it sound like all girls (yes, only girls ) who have pre-marital relations are dirty, unwholesome, and unjust - sinful people who should be punished. Whether parents like to admit it or not, this is a new era and kids are "gettin' jiggy with it" much earlier in life. Do I think that's okay? No. But having a hateful you're-going-to-Hell-if-you-do-this attitude isn't going to help anything. We should teach kids the truth about sex and its consequences, not automatically slap "I'm Abstinent" stickers on their foreheads.

2) It kind of freaks me out that girls as young as ten (and in some cases, way younger) are attending these things. Girls that young haven’t even experienced puberty - or any of the sexual urges that go along with it - so how could they fully understand the concept of abstinence (or sex, for that matter)? Their parents are making decisions for them before they’ve lived long enough to understand their situation.

3) These dads aren't giving their "little darlings" enough credit. If you watch a lot of the videos and documentaries on this subject, you'll see that most of the fathers have very skewed ideas of what it means to be a "little girl." They basically think that all young women are self-conscious until their fathers step in and tell them how beautiful they are - one man was even quoted saying “females were created to feel accepted by men,” and “even though we want to think we’re the same, we are different . . . A woman needs to feel loved and accepted by her father. She was created by God to feel that.” Heck, fathers should compliment their daughters (and sons). But not because we're delicate little things that need constant reassurance, but because that's what family does. (And another thing, what's with all the emphasis on "beauty"? I don't know about you, but I'd rather be praised for my smarts or kick-butt nunchuck skills . . . )

4) Last time I checked, I’m not carrying a club or wearing a leopard-skin loin cloth. So that must mean we’re past the age where “fathers own their daughters until they can be passed onto a husband.” But that’s exactly what’s going on here! These fathers are assuming that their daughters are too "emotional" and "irrational" to make their own decisions, so they have to "take control" until another man comes along to take care of them. Is that a huge insult or what?

6) Purity Balls exclusively promote "heteronormativity." I can't imagine a bi- or homosexual girl walking in with confidence to one of those things, and that is discrimination.

7) Purity Balls are sexist and promote a ridiculous double-standard. They’re meant for fathers and their daughters - because it’s crucial that we protect girls’ virginities at all costs. But what about young boys? Why aren’t people spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to make sure their sons stay pure until marriage? Well, this is going to blow your mind, but there are balls for sons and their mothers. But instead of promoting purity for themselves, the boys are told to “refrain from soiling girls' virginities."

Here's a barf-bag. You might need it.

I guess I just don’t understand why our virginity has to be anybody’s business but our own, or why (as women) it’s completely tied to our worth as people. It’s a horrible double-standard that’s almost completely irrelevant in this day and age. On a side note, I don’t think I give my own dad enough credit because, now that I think about it, he would never even consider taking me to one of those horrid Purity Balls. He doesn't own a tux.

Hah, but seriously, he knows that I’m smart enough to make my own decisions about what’s right for me and my life, and he trusts me - no questions asked. If you've got a dad (or a mom, or a step-parent, or a crazy Uncle Jimmy) in your life that trusts you like that, run out and give them a hug right now!

___________________________

If you're interested in reading more about this topic check out Jessica Valenti's The Purity Myth! I haven't read it yet myself, but it's highly-acclaimed in the feminist universe:

The United States is obsessed with virginity -- from the media to schools to government agencies. In The Purity Myth Jessica Valenti argues that the country's intense focus on chastity is damaging to young women. Through in-depth cultural and social analysis, Valenti reveals that powerful messaging on both extremes -- ranging from abstinence curriculum to "Girls Gone Wild" infomercials -- place a young woman's worth entirely on her sexuality. Morals are therefore linked purely to sexual behavior, rather than values like honesty, kindness, and altruism. Valenti sheds light on the value -- and hypocrisy -- around the notion that girls remain virgin until they're married by putting into context the historical question of purity, modern abstinence-only education, pornography, and public punishments for those who dare to have sex. The Purity Myth presents a revolutionary argument that girls and women are overly valued for their sexuality, as well as solutions for a future without a damaging emphasis on virginity.

I also like Purity Balls: Protecting Girls From Making Choices, an article by Tracie Egan Morrissey featured on Jezebel:

"...But ultimately, what's most troubling about purity balls and such pledges is that the parents are always talking about how there are "terrible consequences" to making "certain" (read: sexy choices. And while that can be true, why is the solution then to discourage their daughters from making any choices at all? I admit that I'm approaching the topic with my own biases — about sex and religion and people who parent their children with a "do what I say, not what I've done" philosophy — but it's clear from this clip that this 11-year-old girl has no idea about what dating in the 21st century is like, and it's scary to think that there's a chance she never will."

Should men and women be treated equally?

"Turns Out You Gals Are Useful After All!" *shakes head*

The question “should women be treated differently than men?” has unnerved people for centuries, but it’s become especially prominent since the women’s rights movement of the 1960’s when women proved (at least on a more public scale) that hey, we’re people too. But in order to analyze such a broad question we have to break it down, because in its natural state it could be interpreted (or misinterpreted) a thousand different ways. For the sake of my argument, I’m going to assume the question states: “should women be treated differently, given unequal opportunities, and/or succumb to gender roles strictly because they are female?” And to that my answer is heck no.

People have always had the uncanny ability to discriminate against each other. Our foremothers and forefathers were guilty of it just as we’re guilty of it today, even if we don’t like to admit it, or like to pretend that we’re all upstanding citizens. But when you get an eclectic group of people together a hierarchy is almost always going to form, and usually for the most ridiculous reasons. After Africans were imported to North America to be used on cotton plantations and for other drudge-labor, white folks got it in their heads that these “barbarians” were inferior intellectually, morally, and spiritually. The same thing happened with the influx of people from Asia during the mid-1800’s; obviously because they looked different they were bound to cause trouble, rape our daughters, and be useless for anything other than getting out mustard stains at the local Laundromat (please note the sarcastic inflection of my voice). Adolf Hitler is another fine example of someone who had a seriously skewed perception of life’s pecking order; he believed that Jewish people were to blame for everything from economic troubles to Germany’s defeat in World War I. All of these examples were horrible shadows in our past - the types of things that, every once in a while, make me ashamed to be an American - but we can’t forget that sexism, one of the oldest forms of discrimination, is still alive and kicking.

In the beginning, when population densities were low and people spent most of their time hunting and gathering just to survive, there was general equality between the sexes because everybody played an important role in society. If men stopped hunting, everybody would starve. Likewise, if women didn’t forage for berries and other vegetation people would still be in trouble, because finding enough meat was never a sure thing. It wasn’t until the advent of sedentary agriculture that people were “freed up” from their responsibilities and left to pursue other fields. But when men and women inevitably filtered into different roles - men busying themselves crafting weapons, hunting, and going to war; women with tending fields and taking care of children - a clear pecking order was in the works. And despite the fact that more than 99 percent of male and female genetic coding is exactly the same (Brizendine), women are still feeling the repercussions of that ancient hierarchy, haunted by the term coined by Simone de Beauvoir nearly four decades ago: “the second sex.”

One of the most frustrating parts of being a woman is being talked about - or rather, defined - by our gender. As a sixteen-year-old high school girl I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard people (mainly guys) saying “girls are all prissy, high maintenance, emotional, and gold-diggers.” Since when does the fact that I have “unmentionables” determine what kind of person I am, whether I’m strong or unstable, intelligent or ditzy? Frankly, it’s insulting. And it’s no better than assuming that all African Americans steal things, that all Asian people are bad drivers, or that all guys want only “one thing.” You cannot take a group of people (and mind you, there are roughly 3 zillion women in the world) and pin specific traits on them. It doesn’t work that way. And assuming that a sixteen-year-old boy has been lucky enough to meet even 0.00001% of the world’s female population, who is he to judge what trait’s all women have or not have?

The expectations for women in our society are pretty much set in stone. As women, we are expected to be pretty, delicate, soft, and cooperative. We’re not usually expected to speak our minds; it’s much more convenient if we’re seen but not heard. We’re taught from a young age that girlhood revolves around shopping, clothes (Target was recently blasted for selling padded bras meant for six-year-olds), makeup, and boys, and that our talents are much better spent in nurturing others than in scientific or technical fields that might take us away from our domestic duties. Marya Mannes may have said it best: “Nobody objects to a woman being a good writer or sculptor or geneticist if at the same time she manages to be a good wife, a good mother, good-looking, good-tempered, well-dressed, well-groomed, and unaggressive.” In short, there is so much pressure on girls to fit into this Barbie-like mold of what it means “to be a woman,” that it can be incredibly damaging to our self-esteem and peace of mind.

One of the most poignant aspects of our so-called “womanhood” is how much of our net worth is derived from how we look. There’s a two-to-one ratio of depression in women compared to men, but these trends don’t surface until girls reach early adolescence (Brizendine) when pressures to be “hot,” “sexy,” “desirable,” and maybe even “easy” reach their peak. During this tender age, if a girl is a tomboy, has no desire to talk about boys, would rather boldly argue her points than sit passively, or in any way goes against the “norms” for girls her age, she may have a really hard time fitting in with her peers.

But this isn’t just a women’s issue, this affects men as well. Think about it: with pressures to date, get good grades, carve out a reputation, and do otherwise unsavory activities, adolescence is tough enough. But when people don’t fit the “mold” that society has deemed appropriate for them (a role that’s existed since the dawn of time), that can be devastating. For example, do you honestly see a boy who would rather knit than play football getting a whole lot of respect from his peers? Of course not, because boys are supposed to be macho, tough-as-nails, adrenaline-pumping machines, not spineless, flower-sniffing twinkle toes . . . Do you get my point? These stereotypes are killing us. And if men and women are treated differently (i.e. unequally) based solely on their genders, this only reinforces gender roles which are damaging to all parties involved.

A sad reality for women today is that even if they encompass all the (wonderful) qualities associated with being a woman - empathy, compassion, helpfulness - these qualities are grossly devalued in our society. In fact, today’s biggest insults are ones that attack people for their (stereotypical) feminine qualities. “You’re a wuss.” “Be a man.” “Boys don’t cry.” “You throw like a girl.” When the biggest insult for a boy is to be called a girl, and the biggest insult for a GIRL is to be called a girl . . . Well, that’s when we know things have gone too far and we’ve got a problem on our hands. I’m talking a global-warming-sized problem. An economic-deficit-sized problem. A mind-blowingly HUGE problem because half of the world’s population is being attacked for something they can’t control and shouldn’t be ashamed of!

But through careful societal manipulation and advertising we’re lead to believe that aggression, boldness, physical strength, and dominance (stereotypical male qualities) beat out honesty, cautiousness, and mediation (stereotypical female qualities) every time. If we continue to let it be okay to treat women differently on the bases that we were born with a vagina - and don’t deserve every single right that men have - the gap between traits that are considered positive (male) and traits that are considered negative (female) will continue to grow, and everybody will be at a great disadvantage.

One gross misdemeanor that would make any feminist (including myself) cringe is when common courtesy is mistaken for “being a gentleman.” Boys my age complain that (all) girls expect them to hold doors open for them, pull out their chairs, and fork out their wallets every time the bill comes around. I’ll save my you-can’t-categorize-all-women-like-that speech for another day, but it’s unfortunate that “common courtesy” is all too often confused with “a man’s duty.” Don’t hold a door open for me because I’m a fragile woman who needs to be tended and cared for, hold it open for me because I’m a person, and it’s the polite thing to do. Just like I’m going to hold the door open for the next person, regardless of whether they’re a man or a woman.

Up until now, we’ve discussed strictly emotional aspects of sexism: how boys and girls feel when they’re typecast, how infuriating it is for a woman - a woman with unique thoughts, feelings, and ambitions - to be stereotyped because of her gender, and how devastating it is to be told the things you can and cannot do, all because of the parts you were born with. For some of us, the fact that there are people suffering because of gender stereotyping is reason enough to consider sexism a hot-button issue. But for others, all that “mushy stuff” isn’t good enough. These people (usually the same ones who think all feminists are hairy man-haters) want tangible proof, and unless we can show them exactly when, where, and how women are stereotyped and degraded they’ll never be satisfied. Well, I will be happy to enlighten them.

According to Deborah Siegel in Sisterhood, Interrupted, “Women own only 1 percent of the world’s assets, continue to make up the majority of the world’s poor, [and] are disproportionately victims of violent crime.” Speaking to that last item, we girls are constantly reminded how dangerous the world can be and how it’s our responsibility to protect ourselves. But isn’t it funny that disproportionately less time is spent teaching young people (i.e. males) why domestic violence is wrong, or how it can be prevented in the first place? In an extreme example of how little people acknowledge the all-too-real threat of abuse, “The South Carolina House Judiciary Committee voted in 2005 to make cock-fighting a felony, but tabled a bill that would have done the same for domestic violence” (Valenti).

I could write a book on how unfairly women are treated in the professional world, but I’ll start with something called the Glass Ceiling Effect, as explained by Jessica Valenti in her book Full Frontal Feminism: A Young Woman’s Guide to Why Feminism Matters:

It’s illegal to discriminate against someone because of their sex (or race, color, national organization, or religion, for that matter), but it still happens all the time. The Federal Glass Ceiling Commission found that one of the reasons for discrimination is a “difference” barrier that “manifests through conscious and unconscious stereotyping and bias.” So basically, the people who do the hiring like hiring people who look like them. And if it’s a white guy doing the hiring... Well, you see where I’m going.

As of 2007, women represented 16 out of 100 U.S. senators, 71 of 435 representatives, 20 percent of college professors, 17 percent of law firm partners (Seigel), and men continue to outnumber women six to one in top corporate jobs (Valenti). Not to mention that equal-pay-for-equal-work is still a joke, “because for every dollar a man earns, a women still earns only 77 cents - an increase from the 59 cents she earned when the second wave of feminism began, but still far from equal” (Siegel). And if all this weren’t enough, an article in a July 2006 issue of The New York Times reported that “unemployed men do less work around the house than women who have full-time jobs”; a 2005 study from New York University found “the more a woman weighs, the less her family income and occupational prestige”; and reputable publications around the country are printing articles with outrageous titles like “Don’t Marry Career Women” and “Career Women Make Bad Mothers” (Valenti). We just can’t win, can we?

What’s worse, men are rarely (if ever) discriminated this way. When have you heard of a man being refused for hire purely because he was a man? Men have been fired for being “too fat” and “too gay” (just a couple of the many stigmas we “imperfect people” face) but never because of their gender. In fact, if we were to create a fictional world where some men earned less than other men because they were, say, shorter - most people would just laugh. Even though the scenario mimics perfectly how some women are treated (i.e. the short men would be earning less for biological factors completely out of their control), we all know that this would never happen in real life.

So when do we stop talking about that instance of office sexism when a woman’s behind was treated like a piece of meat, and start reporting it? When do we stop accepting less pay for doing the same jobs as men (or, if that doesn’t affect us personally, start standing up for women who are in that position)? When do we stop letting others dictate the types of fields we enter, the top positions we apply for, and the passions we have? When do we stop letting terms like “bitch” and “slut” define women in this country? And when will we finally realize that heck, we’re worth fighting for?

This is where feminism comes into play.

If you’re like most Americans, the word “feminism” conjures up several images in your mind. Maybe you picture hippie ladies burning their bras and letting their untrimmed facial and underarm hair flap in the wind. Maybe you picture radical women plotting their next attack on mankind (literally), or socially-inept, angry-at-the-world shut-ins as they mutter curses under their breath before sitting down to a meal of little puppies. There are so many misconceptions about feminism (thank you, media!), that it’s really frustrating for young women who want to be an advocate for women’s rights, but don’t want to be labeled as any of the above stereotypes. In her comprehensive novel Feminism, Christina Fisanick explained:

According to a 2005 poll conducted by CBS News, it is a tough time to be a feminist. Although the majority of women polled believe that the women’s movement had helped improve their opportunities above those of their mothers’ generation, 70 percent of them did not consider themselves to be feminists. This data reflects what has become a growing number of women who have distanced themselves from the label “feminist.” It is not uncommon for women, especially young women, to begin sentences about the rights of women with the phrase, “I am not a feminist, but . . .” Regrettably, feminism has become the new f-word.

Pat Robertson, a right-wing political spokesperson and host of The 700 Club, even went so far as to say feminism is “a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.” Wow. Please take a moment to stifle your incredulous laughter, or regain consciousness (whichever comes first).

Thanks to the media (and lovely right-wingers like Mr. Robertson) Feminism has been distorted almost beyond recognition. This idea of a man-hating subculture of women surely isn’t what our grandmothers had in mind when they picketed for equal job opportunities and reproductive rights. At it’s core, feminism is simply “the movement toward full political, economic, and social equality for men and women” (Baumgardner). But we might relate better to the phrase made famous by Cheris Kramarae in The Feminist Dictionary, “feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings.”

Feminism is generally described in three stages or waves. The First Wave initiated in 1848 at Seneca Falls, New York with the first formal women’s rights conference. Women who joined this movement were often part of the thriving antislavery movement; other times they were inspired by local Native American cultures that afforded women extensive rights, like land ownership and the right to vote. Second Wave feminism was dedicated to equality under the law and in opportunity, and “beginning in the sixties and continuing into the seventies, laws were passed guaranteeing equal access to education (Title IX), outlawing gender discrimination (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act), and coining phrases for date rape, domestic violence, and sexism - serious problems that used to just be called life” (Valenti). Though Second Wave feminism is often criticized for exclusively favoring white, middle-class women, modern-day feminism (or Third Wave feminism) has been shaped by women of all races, nationalities, religions, abilities, and sexual orientations, making it increasingly relevant to all of our lives.

However, there’s still a lot of controversy surrounding “liberal feminism” and how it might corrupt the integrity of the initial movement of the 1960’s. In short, there are some women who believe female empowerment is all about flaunting their sexuality. “Only thirty years (my lifetime) ago,” stated Ariel Levy, author of Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture,“ our mothers were ‘burning their bras’ and picketing Playboy, and suddenly we [are] getting implants and wearing the bunny logo as supposed symbols of our liberation. How had the culture shifted so drastically in such a short period of time?” Levy went on to say:

What was almost more surprising than the change itself were the responses I got when I started interviewing the men and - often - women who edit magazines like Maxim and make programs like The Man Show and Girls Gone Wild. This new raunch culture didn’t mark the death of feminism, they told me; it was evidence that the feminist project had already been achieved. We’d earned the right to look at Playboy; we were empowered enough to get Brazilian bikini waxes.

However discouraging this new wave of “chauvinist women” may be, we can’t forget the hordes of women who still want to represent the integrity of First Wave feminism. Women around the country (and the world) are gaining momentum as an extremely positive and influential force; we are the enlightened ones who know sexism and gender discrimination is fundamentally wrong, and we’re the ones who are trying to do something about it.

There are some people out there who believe feminism is irrelevant in this day and age. “Women got their 19th Amendment,” they say, “isn’t that good enough?” While women have come a long way (I certainly appreciate the fact that I’m not barred from wearing pants), we still have a long way to go. Women still have a great deal to fight for because, to be honest, women are not seen as equal to men. Not on a whole, anyway. Now this doesn’t mean that all women are oppressed, that all women are unhappy, or that I’m not appreciative for the rights we do have. But there are plenty of women in the world who are suffering unnecessarily for things beyond their control, and as part of the glorious group that is the WAWOW (Wickedly Awesome Women of the World) I have to do my part to better the condition of women everywhere. Because the day we stop standing up for each other, the day we sit down and throw our hands up in the air, the day we stop fighting for the rights we know we deserve - is the day we agree with everything we’ve ever been accused of.

Works Cited
Baumgardner, Jennifer, and Amy Richards. Grassroots: a Field Guide for Feminist Activism. New York, N.Y.: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005. Print.

Brizendine, Louann. The Female Brain. New York: Broadway, 2006. Print.

Fisanick, Christina. Feminism. Detroit: Greenhaven, 2008. Print.

Levy, Ariel. Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture. New York: Free, 2005. Print.

Siegel, Deborah. Sisterhood, Interrupted: From Radical Women To Grrls Gone Wild. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. Print.

Valenti, Jessica. Full Frontal Feminism: A Young Woman's Guide To Why Feminism Matters. Emeryville, CA: Seal, 2007. Print.

Weiner, Jessica. Do I Look Fat in This?: Life Doesn't Begin Five Pounds from Now. New York: Simon Spotlight Entertainment, 2006. Print.